EQ high end test: all uad & 2 analog

[boody]

Hi,

after all the debates about the highs of our uad eqs I made a small test to compare them. The testfiles are as matched as possible in the short time I made them. Level should be near equal (except the original) but peaks may vary.

The test is just 1 band of boost around 8Khz, about 8db, varying as to what canceled best. Files are 24bit wav @ 44.1 to hear maximum aliasing effect

I numbered the files so you can listen to them objectively. I'll reveal the source and post the presets in a couple of days.

You can find it zipped here http://www.mokosound.com/temp/ET-test.zip

What are your findings?

Cheers
Budy

----------------------------

About the test: it is ofcourse subjective. I matched the eqs by trying to null them with the phase-inverse test but ofcourse that is impossible. Some eqs give high peaks due to their phase side-effects. Some eqs compress as well due to their original design (i.e the all tube pultec). I didn't go for a good sounding guitar. I was just testing the effect on high frequencies and the amount of degradation of the source file. I used a setting I could achieve on all eqs.

I tested the cambridge, pultec, precision eq, 1073se, ex1 and the logic channel eq & 2 analog eqs. The analog eqs are no fancy devices: the neanderthal eq with an enhancer from my joemeekVC1 and the 80s eq from my D&R Dayner desk in a non optimal environment.

The audiofile is a horrible recorded acoustic strummed guitar from apples loop collection.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

i LOVE THESE TESTS.... THANKS bOODY.

OK. I know you didn't ask for guesses, but I will guess anyway.

This oughta show off my cardboard ears rather well.

1. Joe Meek exciter
2. Precision EQ
3 Cambridge
4. Neve????
5. Pultec
6 EX1
7 Logic?????
8. Analog board

I am not sure I could even tell 4 and seven apart in a blind test. They are so close. This makes me think that I must have gotton something wrong, unless the logic EQ is a matching eq and it was keyed to the Neve... then I was very lucky. I own neither the neve or the logic eq so that is all a guess. 4 sounded a little less ticky to me so I guessed it was the neve just based on voodoo.

The two analog were a sort of wild guess too since I don't know eithers sound. But those two sounded the analogiest to me and the first one sounded like it had an exciter on it. What is a Neandertal EQ? Is it part of the joe meek thing?

cAPS

 

[cAPSLOCK]

One other thing. I intended to pick favourites. But you know... as far as I as I am concerned... On a good source all of these eqs should sond just fine. Some I like very slightly better than others... I like #5 for example. I suppose I was least excited about #6 and #1. But we are talking fairly hair-thin preferences.

Perhaps my ear is just not good enough to hear the difference.

But sometimes I think we really split hairs when it comes to the weight we put on these plugins to do our work of good recording for us.

 

[boody]

Hi cAPS,

don't worry about your ears man 8) They are alright ( though not everything is right).

I just wanted to check how much the anti aliasing effects are ruining the highs with the different plugs. 8db boost is big enough to hear artifacts. I do think sometimes we split hairs too much.

Just as with the compressors the differences are not _that_ big, especially when you use the plugs in a more subtle way. But it _is_ very important to use different plugs to get a wider and more focussed mix: those subtle differences do help us to hear instruments more isolated in a mix.

Oh, neanderthal EQ is a joke: I ment the EQ is rather primitive. I tried the EQ of the OneQ last week and thats a whole different EQ; very good.

Cheers
Budy

 

[boody]

So, for all interested, here's the answer:

1 Joemeek VC1
2 Logic EQ
3 Cambridge
4 Precision EQ
5 Pultec
6 Neve
7 EX1
8 Analog desk channel (D&R Dayner)

Cheers for cAPS for being brave: you do know your eqs & have good ears 8) the ones you missed were the ones you don't have (except the EX-1 but that one always surprises me; it's always better then I expect it to be and too easily forgotten).

About the high end: I think it does matter to use superior EQs but not so much as we all asume it does. It will matter on extremely good recordings, especially acoustic instruments, but to make such recordings you need a truly great recording room and great & good serviced gear (next to the knowledge of how to make a great recording). And that is hard to find these days, especialy in home and small studio setups.

A daw can produce way more high end than a tape recording. It's also more static. Even my tascam DM24 digital desk produces more high end and more and tighter low end than my clean D&R Dayner analog desk, though everyone things the D&R sounds better. In a way it does: it's less static because it's less precise, especially in the midrange. That makes it sound smoother. But it also lacks high and low end.

The sum of all high end enhancements by eq makes it worthwhile to use an EQ with good anti aliassing algorithmes and/or upsampling on important sources. It will make those sources stand out and make the overall highs in the mix less static. Different EQs make for better seperation of instruments and so a better defined mix, so the same eq on every track is not ideal.

Ofcourse this is all my opinion, no sience intended and everyone is free to disagree. I hope the test was of use to some. For me it was a reminder that every EQ is usefull and I know I will use the EX-1 a bit more often...

Cheers
Budy

ps: presets will folow; haven't had time yet, not in the studio right now...

 

[Guest]

thanks! interesting how close they are.

 

[Dan Duskin]

I tried to download... but it said the zip file is corrupted.

 

[EDDU]

About the high end: I think it does matter to use superior EQs but not so much as we all asume it does. It will matter on extremely good recordings, especially acoustic instruments, but to make such recordings you need a truly great recording room and great & good serviced gear (next to the knowledge of how to make a great recording). And that is hard to find these days, especialy in home and small studio setups.

Again, its quite obvious we homestudio producers should stop complaining about what we dont have, waiting for new plugins to improve our music quality and give us a bit extra free talent portion.

Sorry its just that i came from holidays and all i made with the computer since i arrived is crap. I am frustrated.

 

[Guest]

I don't think people are confusing recording quality with talent. believe me i have owned a behringer product. once.

 

[mammath]

Different EQs make for better seperation of instruments and so a better defined mix, so the same eq on every track is not ideal.

I can certainly see where you're coming from! :wink:

 

[boody]

I tried to download... but it said the zip file is corrupted.

hmmm, this one was zipped by my mac; maybe be a mac-pc problem? I tried another zipper and replaced the file. Any Luck?

 

[boody]

Again, its quite obvious we homestudio producers should stop complaining about what we dont have, waiting for new plugins to improve our music quality and give us a bit extra free talent portion.

Nah; I consider myself a homestudio-person (though I'm banned to the garden-house) and I complain all the time :roll: I just tried to ease my mind by an attempt to be a bit more objective towards the stuff I own. But I'm sure you can make great stuff with about anything: I still own some behringer stuff

Mammath; I should have added that that remark was ment for 'soundsignature' eqs as corrective eq is supposed to be invisible. I use different color eq flavours, like compressor flavours, mic flavours, guitar flavours etc. to get a more 3 dimensional mix. Them being different in color is more important to me than their quality (though quality does matter: I don't want it to ruin my track :wink: )

cheers
budy

 

[ranchdip]

Great test thanks!

I prefer the Pultec or the PEQ. Hey, that EX-1 sounds pretty darn good. I'll have to pull that up more often!

 

[mammath]

Mammath; I should have added that that remark was ment for 'soundsignature' eqs as corrective eq is supposed to be invisible. I use different color eq flavours, like compressor flavours, mic flavours, guitar flavours etc. to get a more 3 dimensional mix. Them being different in color is more important to me

This is exactly what I thought you meant. That's how I use 'em. In addition, I always employ ColorTone Pro (on the groups and/or master buss) to achieve that 3 dimensional imagery you point to.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

Once again... this was an interesting test. I am really fascinated that the EX1 sounded so ABSOLUTELY similar to me to the Percision EQ. At least in that 8k band boost they really seemed almost identical to me. Even if I didn't know which was which.

cAPS

 

[ambrose]

wow. i don't normally do this kind of a/b thing, but did and was amazed.

i really liked the pultec best on this materal. very nice, top quality smooth sound which would sit great in a mix. Neve was 2nd in my list, i was only put-off by the long-range uppermid boost which made it easy to pick out.

Amazingly, my scribbled comment for what turned out to be the PEQ was \"this has got to be the ex-1\". duuhhh. does this mean i actually have no idea what a good digital eq is supposed to be?

oh well.

 

[boody]

Amazingly, my scribbled comment for what turned out to be the PEQ was "this has got to be the ex-1". duuhhh. does this mean i actually have no idea what a good digital eq is supposed to be?

Nah, it's not that bad :wink: This test was just checking the high end with a +/-8db boost. The quality of a good eq is determined by more than that. Maybe I will do a test later on with a boost on low, mid and high. That way the eq reveals itself in depth, focus, definition, artifacts etc... I think then the difference will be much bigger.... :?:

cheers
budy

 

[Mark Edmonds]

An excellent test - thanks for doing this!

I haven't read anything anyone has said so I don't know what the results are, nor what people are saying.

I loaded up each wav into Nuendo on a separate track and soloed around, using the track notepad to write comments. I did it for about 20 minutes until I felt I had identified some aspect to each test.

So here is what I wrote!

ET#1 a bit nasal
ET#2 a bit heavy on plectrum
ET#3 rolled off?
ET#4 no comments because I was having trouble with this and #6
ET#5 a bit aggressive on attacks
ET#6 see ET#4
ET#7 seems to reveal more perhaps, plec not too heavy
ET#8 perhaps a bit edgy and wirery

So I suppose that means the ones I couldn't really write anything about were 4 and 6 so they caused me less problem. OTOH, I probably prefered 3 for overall sound at solo level.

Therefore, my prefs are probably 4 and 6 followed by 3 then 7. 1 and 2 last and 5 and 8 just above that.

Well, let's see if the results are out!

Great stuff, thanks again!

Mark

PS: I'm not going to guess which is which!!!! (I have some hunches though)

 

[Mark Edmonds]

Just checked the results! I can only say Fuck!!!!

The two I liked least were the Joemeek VC1 and Logic EQ. Actually, I thought those two were pretty bad in this test.

My prefered selection came in with PEQ, Neve, Cambridge then EX-1 which isn't a bad selection.

But.... one of my guesses that I didn't write was that I thought 3 was the Pultec!!!! Ooopps!

Actually, I am slightly relieved I didn't pick the Pultec 'cos I've never really liked it. I suspect my thinking the Pultec was more aggressive is that it has such a broad curve character that it would have pulled up more low end, therefore, bigger sound. I didn't notice any roll-off though.

Also interesting I felt that the EX1 was revealing more but it didn't quite have the right balance to my ears which is why I didn't pick it first.

Mark

 

[boody]

the joemeek vc1 eq is pretty primitive and not so useful. The new models have a far better eq.

cheers
Budy